Monday, November 28, 2011

Romney in 2006: Productive illegals should be able to apply for "citizenship"

Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, who charged Republican presidential primary rival Newt Gingrich with proposing “amnesty” for certain illegal immigrants, took a nearly identical position in a 2006 Bloomberg interview, saying some foreigners who entered the U.S. illegally should be allowed to remain and gain legal status.

Romney, who at the time hadn’t yet declared his first presidential candidacy for 2008, told reporters and editors in Bloomberg News’s Washington bureau that the 11 million immigrants who entered the U.S. illegally “are not going to be rounded up and box-carred out.” Law-abiding people who pay taxes, learn English and don’t rely on government benefits should be allowed to “get in line” to apply for citizenship, he said.

“We need to begin a process of registering those people, some being returned, and some beginning the process of applying for citizenship and establishing legal status,” Romney said during the March 29, 2006, session.

The comments contrast with the position Romney took last week when he challenged Gingrich’s assertion during a televised debate that the U.S. should have a “humane” immigration policy that allows some people who entered the country illegally long ago, have no criminal record, and have family, civic and religious ties to stay and get legal status. Romney called the approach “amnesty” and a magnet for illegality.

In 2006, Romney said regarding undocumented immigrants in this country: “We’re not going to go through a process of tracking them all down and moving them out.”

He suggested that some could stay and pursue legal status while others are deported. “We should have those individuals who are here illegally begin a process either of returning to their homes -- particularly those that are unable to be here without government support or those who are involved in crime --or beginning a process of registering for a citizenship, applying for citizenship and then carrying out the process necessary to get there,” Romney said.

Words spoken in unguarded moments often reveal a person’s true views and character.

Rand Paul in an unguarded moment argued that the government should not force private businesses to abide by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Later he backpedaled and said, “Let me be clear: I support the Civil Rights Act because I overwhelmingly agree with the intent of the legislation, which was to stop discrimination in the public sphere and halt the abhorrent practice of segregation and Jim Crow laws.”

It may have been a rookie mistake when he let slip his belief that the Civil Rights Act should not be enforced, but he came through with the practiced politician apology.

Glenn Beck made these horrid comments while in the comfort of a friendly FOX News morning show.

This president, I think, has exposed himself as a guy, over and over and over again, who has a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture. I don’t know what it is.

I’m not saying he doesn’t like white people. I’m saying he has a problem. He has a — this guy is, I believe, a racist.

A year later, and after taking much flak, including dropped advertising from his show, Beck offered a sort of apology along the lines of “It depends on what the meaning of the words ‘is’ is.”

Here is what Beck had to say by way of retraction.

“It shouldn’t have been said,” the 46-year-old former disc jockey said on Fox News Sunday. “I have a big fat mouth sometimes and I say things, and that’s not the way people should behave. And it was not accurate.”

What does Beck wish he had said? He’s not racist, he’s just a “Marxist.”

“He is a guy who understands the world through liberation theology.”

In a previous blog I pointed out a failure on Beck’s part to admit that Minuteman Shawna Forde had killed nine year old Brisenia Flores and her father when Beck went on a rant claiming that “...the fact is there has never been a border shooting involving a Minuteman, not one! Zero! None!” I refrained from calling Beck a racist in that blog, but it is hard to reach any other conclusion. This story was covered by many national news outlets. Even FOX News covered the story, although they conveniently failed to mention that Shawna Forde was a Minuteman. Yet Beck doesn’t acknowledge that Forde, one of the murderers was a Minuteman.

But [Obama] did make a very racist comment about blacks and whites and so on, which he said in his campaign he would be completely above. And that was something which perhaps shouldn’t have been said about the President, but if you actually assess what he was talking about, [Beck] was right.

Murdoch also drew strong criticism for running a cartoon in the New York Post which appeared to compare Obama to a chimpanzee. Murdoch later offered the expected, and practiced apology.

Dr. Laura Schlessinger ended her career with an on-air rant repeating the n-word multiple times and in three different comments. But the most racist thing she said in that episode was “If you’re that hypersensitive about color and don’t have a sense of humor, don’t marry out of your race.”

There is just no way that an honest person can whitewash Schlessinger’s words to change the fact that she is a racist.

What is the connection here between these people? Sarah Palin.

She works for Rupert Murdoch, is great friends with Beck and appeared with him at his racially insensitive Restoring Honor rally (held on the same day and in the same location as Martin Luther King’s I Have A Dream Rally), she endorsed Rand Paul in the primary and faught hard for him, and most daming of all, Palin came to the defense of Schlessinger after her racist comments.

Dr.Laura=even more powerful & effective w/out the shackles, so watch out Constitutional obstructionists. And b thankful 4 her voice,America!

Is Palin a racist because of her racist associations? Possibly. But we don’t even need to look to her associations to understand the full figure of her character. She did that for us with her tweets.

Why haven’t the right roundly condemned Palin the way they did Obama for his associations with Jeremiah Wright? Where has the outrage been from Hannity, Limbaugh, FOX News, or even our own Kristofer Lorelli or Adam Brickley?

Palin needs to be condemned and shunned. As a party we cannot nominate a racist against the first black president. We would be the party of Lincoln no more.

I stand by those words and do beleive that all those I named in that blog are racists.

But there is a very big distinction between you and I. I have come to the defense of Palin here at RS over birthirism. I have also stopped making negative blogs about her many months ago.

You just can't stop attacking Romney. I actually agree with you on this particular blog that Romney has been flipping and flopping on immigration. And I don't like his current anti immigrant stance. But many of your other blogs have been very selective in their quotations, to the point that you often misrepresent Romney.

This is all sour grapes on your part. You have admitted that you aren't backing anyone in the primaries and that you may not even vote in the general. So, in other words, you are more for Obama than you are against him. I have been honest in saying in other comment sections that I am on the verge of leaving the party. But you pretend to still be a republican and to abhor democrat policies. Why don't you be honest with us as to why you are opposing Romney and not opposing Obama.

Thanks for reminding me about your threats to leave the party if your guy doesn't get in. I am also upset with many facets of the Republican party right now. I've been calling myself an independent for about 6 months now, although I may still attend the caucus in Febuary.

Immigration as an issue is going to hurt us, and I wish all the candidates would have to good sense to stay away from it. This election is about the economy! These squabbles about immigration are going to drive independents away from us, and this is playing right into the Democrats hand.

Wait until the Dem machine starts talking about your church's past policy re: blacks in leadership. I'm sure Bishop Romney has some past connections that will prove to be embarassing for him. If not, I'm sure they will "create" some.

Where's the flop. Where's the amnesty. Mitt said put them in line for citizenship. We have to stop the magnets for bringing them here. The answer as Mitt has said.A) Build a fenceB) Stop employing them, by fining the companies that employee them.Then the problem goes away and they go home on their own.

RW you are kinda a flip flopper yourself. You just change to the candidate that isn't Mitt. So your posts often loose their punch over time. Why?? Because you defend by attacking. Why don't you post all the good reasons we should look again at this adulterous thug this time. Or explain why Newt hasn't explained his issues during his time as Speaker of the House. You expect Romney to come clean on everything he does. In fact you can't wait to find some more dirt to spread on him. Yet, your candidate now has a real colored past and present. Running for President requires being vetted. If Mitt's past is far game so is Newt's.

You can bet if Newt wins the primary, the Democrats will vett him for us.

I support Romney. I acknowledge he is an imperfect man, an imperfect candidate, and if he is elected, he will be an imperfect president. That being said, he is the BEST IN THE GOP FIELD!

The field is set. It is the duty of patriots to determine which declared candidate best fits your idea of who should be president, and do your best to get them elected. This is done by examining both their strengths and their weaknesses. After an honest and complete examination, make your decision.

By one of your last post where you had an out of context immigration quote by Romney, it is obvious that anyone can be made out to be a flip flopper. It's a matter of editing and hateful fuel on the part of the editor.

Any candidate can be made out to be a flip flopper with creative editing. John McCain, Newt Gingrich and others have far more flips and flops than Romney, but whey bother going after that when you have so many other meaty scandals to go after with politicians like those.

The reason many make out Romney to be a flip flopper is because there is nowhere else to attack him. Are they gonna go after him on adultery, corruption, stupidity? A BIG NO, becuause it's not there.

Romney has been pretty consistent on immigration. He doesn't believe in rewarding law breaking but the logistics is carting all illegals out is impossible. So, the pressure will come from job verification and the unavailability of benefits.

One of the biggest differences between Gingrich and Romney on this issue is that Gingrich has more compassion for those who broke the law than for the many, many Americans who are affected by illegal immigration. I guess Gingrinch just has compassion for those who don't play by the rules like himself.

Romney is the best candidate period!!!

Keep trying to get all your frustration and dissapointment from Palin not running. It still isn't going to make her run.

RW, you're an anti-Mormon bigot. You may be several positive things as well, but you are definitely a bigot. Your incessant flailing against Romney makes little sense since you support no R candidate until you provide us with incite about your real concern: Romney's Mormonism.

"Wait until the Dem machine starts talking about your church's past policy re: blacks in leadership. I'm sure Bishop Romney has some past connections that will prove to be embarassing (sic) for him. If not, I'm sure they will "create" some."

More embarrassing than say Catholics with pedophile priests? Or Southern Baptists involved in lynchings? Who cares? There are millions of good Americans who are Mormons. Trying to disqualify them as candidates because of the bogey man of decades-old improprieties in their religion is absurd.

Gingrich wants to just give them legal status. Romney wants them to apply for it--there will probably be fees and partial back taxes, which is fair.

Same position he's had for years, and not the same as Newt's. His "legal status w/o voting rights" is just a gateway for Dems to say later that they're second-class citizens, and they deserve voting rights. Then the Dems will have another voting block under their thumb. Not right.

...Applicants must first pass a criminal background check, and then the local committees will assess applications based on family and community ties, and ability to support oneself via employment without the assistance of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and other entitlement programs.The government will rigorously enforce a requirement that all individuals seeking this path to legality must be able to prove that they can independently pay for private health insurance. If an individual cannot prove this, they will lose the ability to stay in the United States.Furthermore, proficiency in English within a certain number of years, similar to the requirement for naturalization, will be required for anyone who seeks continued legal status in the United States.Once an applicant has been granted the right to obtain legal status, he or she will have to pay a penalty of at least $5,000.Moving forward, those who receive this status will have to prove on a regular basis that they can support themselves without entitlement programs and pay for health insurance or else risk the ability to stay in the United States....

Sorry but Bloomberg's article is complete BS. Only an ignorant reader would say they were correct. The same time they said he was pushing amensty and citizenship, Romney made multiple speeches against Amnesty and and special treatment for those who entered illegally. Re-read the article and find their sources for those who quotes... partial, unsourced, quotes. Here is Romney's history on immigration: http://www.thedailycandidate.com/projects/nov/immigration/immigration_forum.html

I don't think that RW is an anti-Mormon bigot, so give him a rest from that one, please.

There is little doubt that the Obama campaign is planning to attack Romney's religion if he is nominated, and they will almost surely blur that into turning Romney (and, by association, all Mormons)into racists. Unfortunately, many southerners will believe that Mormons are racists while they are not. Somehow their history will be forgotten. It's all a big gamble at this point. Obama can't run on his record, that is certain!

Thank you AZ. You made the point better than I did. As I said, I wouldn't have even brought it up, if Martha hadn't called Palin a racist. If Mitt is the nominee, some of the same people who believe Palin is responsible for the Tuscon murders will be convinced that Mormons and Mitt are racist.

What you are saying RW is the ends justifies the means. Newt has been vetted sufficiently and we should all jump on board to support him. We can forget his past. If you say that then you must do the same for Romney. When I look at their different plans Newt hasn't proposed a single plan, plank or platform. Nothing that I should switch allegiance on. The more I find out about Newt the less I like him.

RW, Palin defended racists, that was Dan's and my point. She also is well known for caring little about the native Alaskans who were starving. (Oh, but she did bring cookies with Graham for a photo op.) Her own father admitted that she was not comfortable with other ethnic students, and switched schools because of it.

RW, Sure, a lot of people have and will play the Mormon card. The people who believed Palin was responsible for the Tuscon shootings are few, and what they say doesn't matter to me, and will not affect the race.

And btw, Romney did not support the immigration that came out of the Senate. People who hate him, can try to edit old videos..whatever, but the truth is he did not support that bill and Newt Gingrich did. That is just a fact.

"If Mitt is the nominee, some of the same people who believe Palin is responsible for the Tuscon murders will be convinced that Mormons and Mitt are racist." Yup, Mr. Romney played in the mud during Tuscon and now he stinks like a pig. Martha and Doug made their bed now they must sleep in it. Good night.

OJ, again, how did Romney "play in the mud" during Tuscon? He stayed out of it, as Palin stayed out of it when Newt took Mitt's words out of context...and anytime before or after that anyone did. They are grown ups who can handle themselves. Mitt certainly didn't pile on or do anything wrong with that situation.

OJ, Mitt did not play in the mud during Tucson. It's difficult to even know what anyone should have said or done. The Arizona press had already elected Gabby Giffords to the U.S. Senate even though she was shot through the head. I don't wish her ill, but it certainly doesn't mean my sympathy will destroy my own brain to the point of electing her to a Senate seat.

By the way, if you want an analysis of the religion-turned-race card, just spend some time reading at the Article 6 blog. These are some smart guys who have spent about 4 years looking at religion and politics.

Religion-turned-race-turned racist is probably Obama's best shot against Mitt, if he can successfully pull it off. Unfortunately, there will be a lot of media help on this one. The media loves Obama and truly believes that conservatives are all racists or closet racists--as well as bigots, homophobes, woman-haters, you know the rest--especially religious people are all of the above.

I hope Mitt wins the Presidency, but I am NOT looking forward to the continual persecution that will be heaped onto a lot of innocent people if Mitt wins thhe nomination.